Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.466 of 2023 ====================================================== Bindeshwar Yadav Construction Pvt. Ltd. through its proprietor Rohit Kumar Yadav, aged about 50 years (Male), S/o- Bindeshwar Prasad Yadav, R/o- Ward No.6, Village- Hariraha, Rustampur, P.S.- Laukahi, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Rural Works Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Engineer-in-Chief Rural Works Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Chief Engineer 4-Cum Nodal Officer Rural Works Department Bihar, Patna.

5.

The Chief Engineer-3 Rural Works Department Bihar, Patna. 6.

The Secretary to the Engineer-in-Chief (Technology) Rural Works Department, Govt, of Bihar, Patna.

7.

The Superintending Engineer Work Circle Rural Works Department Darbhanga.

8.

The Executive Engineer Rural Works Division Phulparas, Madhubani,

Patna High Court CWJC No.466 of 2023 dt.05-03-2024 2/3 District- Madhubani.

9.

Maa Construction (BID ID No. 518748) having its office at Village and P.O.- Dhanaunja, P.S.- Phulparas, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gautam Kejriwal, Advocate Mr.Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate Mr. Alok Kumar, Advocate Mr. Mukund Kumar, Advocate Mr. Aditya Raman, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Kumar Alok (SC7) For the respondent no.9 :

Mr. Ashish Giri, Advocate Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, Advocate Ms. Riya Giri, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 05-03-2024 The petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the Technical Bid Committee, which qualified respondent no. 9.

2. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 9 appears and submits that there was a further technical bid conducted and he was disqualified. In such circumstance, nothing survives in the writ petition.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner, however, is pressing for the second relief. The petitioner prays that

Patna High Court CWJC No.466 of 2023 dt.05-03-2024 3/3 appropriate steps should be taken against respondent no. 9, in the light of the direction issued by respondent no. 3 and also against the concerned authorities responsible for ignoring the mandatory requirements for qualification by the Technical Bid Committee. In any circumstance, now since a review has been made, and respondent no. 9 is disqualified, it does lie in the mouth of the petitioner to make such submission before this Court. Whether any action be taken against the erring officials would be the decision of the authorities and cannot be precipitated by orders of this Court and not at all, at the behest of a competing bidder. The remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not a platform to settle scores between bidders or agitate the grouses against government officials.

4. The writ petition would stand dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) (Harish Kumar, J) ranjan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 07.03.2024 Transmission Date NA